Institute for Private Enterprise » David Crowe

Three More Terrorists; Fairfax/Ipso Poll; Immigration Policy

Des Moore — Wed, 21 Nov 2018 10:50:45 +0000

Serious Deficiencies In Security Revealed in Victoria

In my Commentary published on 18 November I suggested the handling of the Bourke St incident indicated serious deficiencies. This has been confirmed by developments since then.

Most important has been the statement by Victorian Attorney General Pakula that Victorian police had not received information from federal sources which would warrant them acting to at least monitor the now dead Muslim terrorist, Shire Ali. But Victorian police chief Ashton subsequently announced that they had in fact received the necessary federal information. This prompted me to send a letter to the press arguing that Pakula should resign but, as he has stuck to his guns and has been supported by Victorian Premier Andrews, that won’t happen a couple of days before the election (see OZ on Bourke St Terrorist Revelationsand Pakula Claims Not Informed of Terrorists Passport Withdrawal).

My letter was published in today’s Australian (see below) and the Herald Sun published a slightly different version

Fix terror tracking

The Australian, Letters, November 21

Following the killing of Sisto Malaspina by terrorist Hassan Khalif Shire Ali and the many questions about the performance of security, police services and Victorian ministers, three men have now been arrested over another alleged terrorist plot (“Melbourne terror raids: three men charged over plot designed for ‘maximum casualties’”, 20/11).

While the capacity of protective services to prevent terrorism is limited, it must be given top priority in monitoring suspects. But despite removal of his passport, and frequent attendance at Muslim prayer bodies, Shire Ali was not.

Information about potential activists must be fully exchanged between state and federal agencies and ministers. Despite the initial denial by Victorian Attorney-General Pakula (“ASIO, Home Affairs contradict Martin Pakula on Shire Ali’s passport”, 19/11), this now appears to have been the case. This avoidance of facts, and failure to stop Shire Ali, calls for the resignation of Pakula.

Most importantly, federal and state governments need to review what appear to be serious deficiencies in arrangements for preventing terrorist activity.

Des Moore, South Yarra, Vic

Debate on this incident will doubtless continue but public attention moved yesterday to the announcement by Victorian police that three Muslims had been arrested as terrorists. It appears that these three had been planning a shooting expedition into a large crowd and their planning had been followed by police for some months despite their use of encryptions (see Objectives of Three Terrorists). Note that they were influenced by“Anwar al-Awlaki, a Yemeni-American cleric who was killed in a drone attack and whose hate sermons inspired two of America’s worst terror attacks: the Pulse Nightclub massacre in Orlando, Florida, and the San Bernardino shooting”.

The report also reveals that “Armagan Eriklioglu, the father of two brothers in the alleged terror cell, posted a link to a Turkish-language Islamic State Facebook –account”. He was not arrested yesterday and the report says he “is not suspected of being part of his sons’ alleged plans”, which seems surprising.

It is possible that this decision by Victorian police to arrest three was timed in order to demonstrate their efficiency (sic) after their poor performance in handling Shire Ali!

As to encryptions, Home Affairs Minister Dutton took the opportunity to call for “the Intelligence Committee today within the parliament to return their advice back to parliament very quickly because this is legislation the government needs to deal with very quickly,” he told reporters. “We have a bill before the parliament that provides the appropriate safety mechanisms, the privacy protections in place, but it allows police and ASIO to do their jobs in relation to these terrorist investigations”. “Mr Shorten has been opposed to this legislation but he needs to review his position as well. We are in a position of vulnerability” (see Dutton Seeks Shorten’s Support on Encryption).

Fairfax-Ipsos Poll Shows Increased Coalition Rating

The Fairfax/Ipsos poll for Nov 14-17 shows an increase in the Coalition’s rating to 48/52 TPP from 45/55 in Oct 10-13. At this level the Morrison government is at a higher rating than the Turnbull one was when he was deposed. But there is still a long way to go for the Coalition and Morrison’s personal performance rating fell to 48 per cent from 50 per cent and his preferred PM rating also fell by a percentage point to 47.

The poll also asked pollers about their views on Energy Policy and Immigrants from Muslim countries, viz

Main energy priority for Government is 47% for Reduce Household Bills cf with 39% for Reduce Emissions.This suggests that, once the cost of reducing emissions hits bank accounts, there is a tendency to reduce support for measures which add to living costs. If the Morrison government were to reduce the cost of emissions (and hence Household Bills) that would likely further reduce support for the mythical dangerous warming thesis.
For views on Immigrants from Muslim countries, 47% say they should be reduced (cf 45% in previous poll) compared with 35% who voted for them to stay the same (cf 29% in previous poll). Those favouring an increase fell from 23% to 14%. As this poll was taken before the Bourke St killing, it probably understates those who think Muslim immigrants should be reduced, as does the latest arrest of three Muslims. A more appropriate assessment would likely occur if the government were to publish an information paper on Muslim beliefs (see Fairfax-Ipso Poll Opposes Increased Muslims)

Immigration Statement by Morrison

In his so-called population speech on Monday, Morrison “floated the idea of reducing the permanent migration cap by about 30,000 people a year. This would bring the maximum permanent intake to the level to which it has fallen in the past year, despite the current cap being 190,000. The population plan will be discussed at the next meeting between state and federal governments on December 12” (see Possible Immigration Targets).

While Labor has indicated it may support a reduction, this is a disappointing response to the many commentators who have argued for a higher reduction figure and to the decision not being made by the Federal government, which should be the policy determinant.

However, Morrison is reported as saying that “Australia will refuse to sign up to the UN’s migration pact, which has already been rejected by the US and several European countries, on the grounds it would weaken border security and undermine the annual immigration program”. He took the position that the compact is

“contrary to the national interest and would be used against Australia by critics of its border policies”. “I’m not going to sign up to an agreement that I believe will only be used by those who have always tried to tear our stronger border policies down”… “I experienced this first-hand back when I was responsible for stopping the boats. We must always decide on these issues and not have our laws undermined by outside influences” … and has a “fundamental flaw” in failing “to distinguish between illegal and “proper” migration when it came to the provision of welfare benefits” (see Australia Not Signing UN Global Migrant Pact).

Hopefully, this decision may also lead to rejecting other global agreements, such as the Paris one on climate change which is clearly not in Australia’s interests. But his statements justifying our immigration policy also need to emphasize that, while reflecting the cultural basis of our society, it is non-discriminatory. As indicated in the recent report by the Centre of Independent Studies, the social cohesion objective is an important component of immigration policy (see CIS Report on Immigration).

Morrison’s Poor Attempts at Compromise

Des Moore — Thu, 25 Oct 2018 10:45:17 +0000

If you are going to “do a deal”, and start from a weak position, you will doubtless have to compromise. But not so that you undermine the essentials of your position. But that is what Morrison is in fact doing with his energy policy: he says that his prime aim is to reduce power prices but at the same time he sticks to the emissions reduction policies and does nothing to reduce subsidies for renewable. This is a contradiction and lower power prices will not be achieved in any degree if the joint energy policy statement by Taylor, Morrison and Frydenberg is realised.

Morrison has also made the astonishing decision to send Turnbull to a UN Bali conference which will be attempting to agree on climate change policies which would (somehow, but nobody knows how in fact) protect the oceans. This decision further undermines confidence in the capacity of the Morrison team, which has ministers who could have gone. Some such conferences are even attended by the local ambassador and it is unbelievable that Morrison implied that only Turnbull had to replace him because of his other (undisclosed) commitments.

Andrew Bolt and Terry McCrann have shown how absurd the current attempt is at compromising. Bolt’s analysis is below and McCrann’s is attached in McCrann on Morrison.

Andrew Bolt: Turnbull no good for ScoMo and must be dumped

POOR Scott Morrison is in an abusive relationship and can’t get out. Memo to the Prime Minister: dump him. Don’t send Malcolm Turnbull to Bali. Turnbull is no good for you. You keep giving in to him but he’ll keep slapping you around.

So here’s where you make a stand: tell that bully he’s out. You’re not sending him as your representative to next week’s Ocean Conference in Bali after all.

It is astonishing that Morrison does not see how stupid it is to send Turnbull to a conference where organisers say “participants are encouraged to announce their commitments …. to preserve the oceans’ health” from threats including “climate change-related impacts”.

Really? What a dumb decision from the get-go. After all, Morrison has been trying to convince voters he’s actually keener on cutting their power prices than on cutting global-warming emissions, which was Turnbull’s obsession. He’s boasted how he won’t send another dollar to the United Nations’ Green Climate Fund, to which the Liberals handed $200 million. So how does it help the Morrison Government to now send a red-hot, global-warming believer like Turnbull to a conference demanding more action on global warming?

It can only make Morrison seem a flake or a fraud. If he really needs to send an ex-prime minister to Bali, he should send climate sceptic Tony Abbott, instead. That would send a more accurate or consistent message.

But I get it. Morrison was desperate to keep Turnbull sweet after he was dumped as prime minister two months ago. He didn’t want Turnbull lashing out in his famous fury, leak damaging secrets or wrecking the Liberals’ recovery — just like Turnbull ratted out late billionaire Kerry Packer to the Australian Broadcasting Tribunal when they fell out over their bid to buy the Fairfax newspapers. Scott Morrison should send climate sceptic Tony Abbott to Bali instead, to send a more accurate or consistent message.

So Morrison gave Turnbull this Bali trip as a sop to his wounded pride. He also guaranteed him a travel fund and, at every stage, insisted on praising Turnbull rather than burying him. But with every gift, how did Turnbull reward him? With a slap in the face.

Turnbull quit parliament, forcing a totally unnecessary by-election in his seat of Wentworth that would cost the government its one-seat majority. Turnbull also pointedly rejected urgent appeals to help Liberal candidate Dave Sharma, who lost narrowly.

Meanwhile, Turnbull surrogates and relatives urged voters to reject the Liberals and made fake claims of Liberal MPs bullying women. Someone also leaked Cabinet secrets to rob Morrison of credit for government announcements.

It was pathetic. And it was war. How much more evidence does Morrison need that Turnbull has a deep need for the Liberals to fail, to prove to himself that they were wrong to sack him? Turnbull will keep abusing the Liberals, perhaps for the rest of his life, so for Morrison to keep trying to placate the implacable makes him seem a poor judge of character.

But, worse, it makes Morrison look weak, and in every which way. Here is Morrison rewarding a man who sabotaged his campaign to save Wentworth. That’s weak.

Here is Morrison even now making Turnbull look needed, as if sacking him really was an awful mistake by a party which can’t now survive without him.

That’s weak, too. How does it help the Morrison Government to now send a red-hot, global-warming believer like Turnbull to a conference demanding more action on global warming?

Morrison is also presenting Turnbull as the best person he could find — better than himself, his Foreign Minister or his Environment Minister — to represent Australia in Indonesia. That makes his whole government look weak. What’s more, Morrison is giving a platform to a former prime minister who now wants the Liberals dead. That doesn’t just make the Liberals look weak, but makes them so.

And Morrison is using Turnbull to promote exactly the global- warming issue that Labor, the Greens and the ABC will use to smash the Liberals at the next election. That weakens the Liberals even more. Morrison needs to show some strength and independence from the ghost he’s invited on to his table.

So ring Turnbull, Prime Minister. Tell him he is a backstabber. Tell him he’s neither wanted nor needed. Tell him there are plenty of people in the government who could represent Australia better.

Dump him. No Bali for him. Of course, you risk having Turnbull’s dwindling bunch of mates in the government — people like the ineffable Craig Laundy, say — then going the full jihad on their own side.

That would weaken the government, too. But in this battle of the weak, wouldn’t it be good not to seem weak yourself?

I have succeeded in having a letter published in today’s Australian, albeit with a chunk deleted (see text below). The Australian also ran other letters (see OZ Letters) which are sympathetic to the sceptic view as reflected in an article by Senator Williams published in The Australian pointing out the large number of, but still increasing, coal-fired power stations in overseas countries. The Australian, which has a new editor, also published a rather “mixed” article on attitudes to climate change within the Coalition and to the meeting being arranged by Energy Minister Taylor with State counterparts tomorrow (see Morrison “Selling” Energy Policy).

I have been unable to download today’s AFR’s lead article headed “Labor rejects big stick on energy”, but which implies that Labor will generally support what would amount to the de facto nationalisation of the electricity industry by Morrison, assuming his policy is fulfilled.

Closing off coal would result in self-inflicted wounds

Letter by Des Moore Published in The Australian, 25 October 2018 (Bits in square brackets deleted by Ed).

You report that [, following its electoral defeat at the Wentworth by-election,] the Morrison government will set a price benchmark for power bills from next July. This is on the advice of Chief Scientist Finkel [appointed by Malcolm Turnbull] that the government should do more on climate change because it is an issue of concern to “everyday voters”, despite Finkel’s acknowledgement that the reduction in emissions by Australia is having no effect on the climate.

Perhaps Morrison’s decision also reflects the view of the Wentworth winner, Dr Phelps, that the government has lurched “too far to the right”. Instead the Morrison government will take its first step towards a socialist economy under which governments controls electricity prices.

[Will the next step be to adopt Dr Phelps objective of having 100 percent renewable? As Alan Jones suggested on 2gb this morning, perhaps Morrison could experiment with electricity fuelled by100 percent renewable in Wentworth, with numerous wind farms along its coastline.]

Morrison Becoming a Hasty Decision-Maker

Des Moore — Sat, 06 Oct 2018 05:03:32 +0000

Polling Under Morrison Still Needs Big Improvement

Yesterday’s Commentary referred to a number of policy decisions and comments on policy positions made by PM Morrison which raised concern about the directions being taken by him and, in particular, whether his government is differentiating itself from the leftish Turnbull government to a substantive degree. The publication of an article in Spectator of 6 October by John Stone (see Stone on Morrison), and other developments, suggest the Morrison government does not seem at present to have the capacity to handle issues in a way conducive to attracting the electorate to the Coalition.

This concern has increased with the latest quarterly Fairfax poll published yesterday showing the Coalition still well behind on a TPP of 47/53 per cent. While this covers part of the period Turnbull was in power, and it is an improvement since the previous poll of 45/55, the headline to the accompanying SMH article – “huge road ahead of Scott Morrison and the Coalition” – is correct (see Fairfax Poll Shows Coalition 47/53). It seems likely that Monday’s Newspoll will also only show a similar improvement since its previous poll of 46/54 published on 24 September.

Stone’s DIS-CON NOTES

While acknowledging that “Morrison deserves some time to ‘prove’ himself”, Stone is critical of a range of decisions to date. These include the dumping of the decisions to raise to 70 the age at which the pension becomes available, the floating of a possibility of having an Aboriginal equivalent to Australia Day, and the acceptance of argument that adherence to the Paris climate accord be retained simply because it would otherwise offend Pacific Island governments. His DIS-CON NOTES also draw attention to the need to frame policies to handle forthcoming UN meetings which seek global control on immigration policy and the establishment of a legally binding treaty on reducing emissions and providing aid to developing countries of $US100 bn per annum to help with the alleged global warming threat.

Stone argues that the right decisions on these issues “will reassure all those Dis-Cons without whose votes he cannot win the next election” and he suggests other decisions which would help too:

Cut immigration by (say) 80,000 per annum, spread over the next two years; reject the Aboriginal industry’s presumptuous demand for a constitutionally imbedded ‘voice’ in the parliament; seek out a top quality businessman, with real media experience and a clear understanding of the ABC’s political bias, to appoint as its chairman; announce that the government will, if re-elected, move to abolish the Human Rights Commission.

Other Developments Which Need Urgent Attention

These include

A response to polling showing the once-safe seat of Wentworth is “on a knife-edge ahead of the October 20 poll” (see Wentworth Outlook) .
Ensuring that urgent attention is given by the Special Minister of State appointed by Morrison to examine the apparent over-spending on communications by minister Stuart Robert who Morrison re-appointed as a minister and is reported as being Morrison’s numbers man (see Stuart Robert).
An explanation by Morrison himself of whether the Australian Power Project CEO is correct in predicting a significant rise in gas/electricity prices in this summer and, if so, what he intends to do about it (see Power Prices Predicted to Rise).
Why Morrison has so brusquely rejected the offer by Shorten to discuss immigration policy (this is on Immigration Policybut Morrison has since rejected the offer in a “not worth considering” manner).
Whether Social Services minister Fletcher has responded correctly on the possible addition to budget spending under the NDIS scheme (see NDIS Threat to Budget)

The Process of Decision Making

This article by The Australian’s political editor, Dennis Shanahan, draws attention to the failures occurring in the political decision-making process and he quotes from a report by the IPA. The IPA finds there is “pressure for senior politicians in governments and oppositions to make decisions quickly and confidently to appear decisive, pander to populist ideas to appear responsive, manufacture wedge issues to distinguish themselves from their opponents, and to put a spin on everything to exaggerate its significance”.

Unfortunately, Morrison seems increasingly to be in the hasty-decision making category.

Morrison Has Long Way to Go

Des Moore — Sat, 08 Sep 2018 12:55:36 +0000

Morrison Has A Long Way to Go

My last Commentary on 6 September suggested that Morrison has an “in-between” policy on energy and that it was hoped that he would make a broad announcement on policies in a speech scheduled to be made in Albury later that day. Alas, that has not proved to be the case and, despite the abandonment of the Turnbull/Frydenberg NEG, energy policy is worse and as confusing as it was under Turnbull. A quotation from his speech published in the SMH/Age gives the gist of his position,viz

“Mr Morrison said his government would stand by its pledge to reduce greenhouse gas emissions by 26 per cent by 2030 but had no intention of reviewing or adjusting the target in the next term. “I have no plans to do any of that,” he said, adding that Australia had delivered on previous United Nations commitments and would meet stand by the Paris climate change agreement as well. “The government’s policy has not changed. We smashed the Kyoto target and Kyoto 2 and I’m very confident that the current commitment will also be achieved . That’s one of the reasons why I don’t see the emissions argument playing into the electricity price argument.”

… “Mr Morrison denied the emissions target would force up electricity prices. “We’ve separated the two things. There was an effort to work those two issues together. That hasn’t been successful,” he said, in a reference to the government’s internal row on climate policy and its decision to abandon cuts to emissions as part of the National Energy Guarantee. “And so I have a minister for the environment who will pursue climate policy and I have a minister for energy who gets electricity prices down. I think that simplifies the world a bit.”

In short, the cost-raising targets for emissions and renewable remain extant and the policy remains that the government will intervene in the electricity market to an even greater extent than scheduled ( by establishing a “safety net” on price, taking a big stick to major energy companies and backing investment in a new energy generation capacity). One wonders whether Frydenberg persuaded Morrison not to modify the previous policy lest that would expose his closeness to Turnbull and would create too much of a challenge from Shorten. Note that there is no mention of any consultation with Cabinet.

Note also Chris Kenny has pointed out that:

“a bill for an act to amend legislation relating to emissions of greenhouse gases, and for other purposes, has not yet been repudiated as Coalition policy. Morrison and his Energy Minister, Angus Taylor, surely must act to drop it formally when MPs gather in Canberra next week. Despite splitting the energy and environment portfolios and demanding Taylor drive down power prices, Morrison repeatedly and emphatically has committed the Coalition to meeting the Paris targets. At Albury he said the targets would be met easily, ‘with no impact on electricity prices at all’.

This posturing could get messy. Already several backbenchers are agitating to withdraw from Paris and former assistant minister Keith Pitt has rejected a frontbench position to argue this stance. Critics portray them as ideologues, whereas in fact supporting cheap energy is practical and pragmatic; it is making costly and futile climate gestures that is ideological.

It is one thing for Morrison to remain in Paris but it is quite another to place great store on meeting the targets. Most other signatories have no meaningful targets to meet or are on track to miss them. Our Prime Minister ought to make clear that if something needs to give on electricity prices, reliability or emissions targets, it is the climate goals that will be disregarded. Instead he is stuck arguing a contradictory line: that the Paris emissions reductions can be delivered at no cost but Labor’s higher targets will be costly. The truth is policies such as the renewable energy target that were designed and implemented to meet emissions reduction targets already have prompted the closure of large amounts of dispatchable generation in South Australia and Victoria, driving increases in prices and decreases in security of supply.

Arguing the Paris targets have no price impact is just bunkum; it is possible from this point forward only if we ignore how we got to this point. This sort of statement would be called out as a bald-faced lie by Labor, the ABC and most of the press gallery except that they are ideologically predisposed to climate gestures, no matter their cost.

Having seen Turnbull skewered for a second time on climate policy, Morrison must deliver clarity. He needs to remember the Coalition was elected in a landslide promising to undo costly climate interventions, not to implement them. Outside electricity, Paris could play havoc with farming, transport and energy export (see Kenny on Morrison’s Energy Policy).

The reality is that so far Morrison remains a long way from “cutting the mustard”, about which John Stone asks in an article published in today’s Spectator (see Stone on Morrison). Stone argues that “Everyone who seeks, as I do, to avoid a Labor government must wish Morrison well; and since Turnbull’s sacking, and Julie Bishop’s relegation to the backbench, were essential if the Dis-Cons (disaffected conservatives) were to be mollified, he has in that sense made a good start. However, Dutton’s demotion arouses more widespread questions about the new ministry. The fact is that Morrison owes his election to all those left and far left Liberals who previously supported Turnbull, and this is reflected in his appointments”.

On this, Stone points out that, “with a couple of notable exceptions, his new ministry seems little changed in orientation from its predecessor”. He praises the appointment of Taylor as Minister of Energy “to clean up Frydenberg’s mess” and Dan Tehan as Minister for Education “to repair the Birmingham shambles” but regrets the omission altogether of Michael Sukkar who had been Assistant Treasurer. And he suggests “if there is one talisman to which those Dis-Cons will turn when deciding whether to return to their former Liberal affiliations, it will be their assessment of how Abbott has been treated. There is only one word for that – shamefully. On personnel grounds, then, the new Ministry fails the test. Despite all those honeyed words about “re-uniting the party”, Morrison’s appointments are inconsistent, overall, with that objective”.

Unless Morrison can somehow improve the mix, it seems we face more troubles within the Liberal party. Monday’s Newspoll may show an improvement on its predecessor (TPP 44/56) but seem likely to leave Labor ahead

Last Weekend for Turnbull?

Des Moore — Fri, 17 Aug 2018 13:00:07 +0000

Chaos Reigns Supreme

I suggested in yesterday’s Commentary that Turnbull’s proposals on NEG policy (sic) have created a chaotic situation in which changes now seem to be made almost every day in an attempt to persuade rebel MP’s to re-think their opposition to the policy and avoid resignations by some Ministers. These rebels are particularly opposed to any legislation which seeks to lock in the 26 per cent reduction in emissions under the Paris accord. It should be noted that, while 10 rebels have been publicly identified, there appear to be others who are also unhappy with some of the existing NEG proposals. Former Major General Jim Molan (now a Senator), for example, told Sky News last night that he did not accept any legislation endorsing the 26 per cent reduction in emissions.

However, today’s developments suggests that the Turnbull regime is concentrating on what will happen to prices under NEG (see Turnbull Attacks Big Three Gentailers). It seems that, despite Frydenberg’s repeated claim that prices have already started to fall, senior ministers now recognise that it is no longer accepted publicly that NEG would produce lower prices. Instead, one of two promises today on policy is that action will be taken against the big generators/retailers (known as “gentailers” because they operate both generators and retailing) for ripping off consumers by unjustifiably raising prices and profits.

Ironically, these ministers claim that the very body which is supposed to ensure competition (the ACCC) should already have evidence to support taking such action and, according to Treasurer Scott Morrison, the mere warning that action may be taken will itself lead the companies to downward adjust their prices as happened with gas prices when export controls were threatened. But that seems unlikely with domestic electricity prices and there is no explanation as to why the ACCC (which recently published an extensive report on the energy “system”) has not already taken action against the companies and why it should not do so now – and immediately.

Just why these gentailers and other retailers have been able to get away with exploitative action is not clear. But the ACCC and the Turnbull government must be held responsible for the price increases which have occurred over recent years. The attached graph shows the increase in wholesale prices plus the addition to costs arising from the cost of renewable certificates which electricity suppliers have been required to pay. This shows that since around 2011 the total costs of electricity have doubled or trebled in the states, with South Australia’s increase being the highest (see Increase in Electricity Prices 2011-2018).

Thus, even before there is any NEG in operation, the regulations imposed under the renewable and emissions policies which Turnbull has operated have been the major contributors to this very large increase in costs born by consumers. As NEG legislation would continue such policies, it is virtually certain that prices will continue to increase unless controls are imposed on electricity prices, which may be under consideration (see Crowe on NEG).

But while Turnbull himself would doubtless be prepared to extend government controls on electricity prices, it seems unlikely that most of Coalition would be prepared to do so in circumstances where the general public has become more aware of the doubts about the usefulness of NEG. Now that a draft of the legislation has been passed to Labor but (amazingly) not to Coalition MPs, it is likely that those doubts will be increased.

Yesterday I referred to adverse analysis made by The Australian’s political editor Dennis Shanahan on the situation facing Turnbull. Today he winds up his piece thus

“Yet while Turnbull tries to placate MPs over prices, there is a growing, wider discontent over his political handling of energy and other issues, including his response to the by-election losses, an inability to put pressure on the ALP and the selling of the government’s tax agenda. Not enough time was spent earlier to address the concerns of the Coalition partyroom and so avoid what is now a sizeable revolt, as well as the impression of a leader being forced to capitulate to internal critics. MPs are frustrated that he did not act earlier on widespread concerns about energy prices and the advantage of being seen to embrace reliable coal-fired power. Instead, he left decisive action to the last minute and seems wedded to the idea of being the only nation to legislate Paris targets”.

Will this weekend wind up Turnbull’s Prime Ministership?

Future of Turnbull & Coalition

Des Moore — Thu, 07 Dec 2017 21:38:42 +0000

Turnbull’s Newspoll Improves But Still Hanging by a Thread

So much has been happening since my Commentary last Friday 1 December that it is difficult to sort out what is important and what is not. The surprise improvement in the Coaliton’s polling on 4 December from a negative 45/55 TPP to a negative 47/53 TPP, and in Turnbull’s net satisfaction rating from minus 29 points to minus 25 points, has led some commentators to see this as the start of a recovery for Mr Turnbull (see Crowe on Newspoll). Certainly, by announcing Cabinet approval of the establishment of a Royal Commission into the alleged misconduct of Australia’s banks and other financial services entitiesafter he had previously rejected it on several occasions, Turnbull bought off the threat by a National’s MP to move in Parliament for a public banking inquiry. He also claimed support for the Coalition from the favourable swing of about 12% in Barnaby Joyce’s winning by-election, although he played no part in Joyce’s campaign. And he has been helped by the withdrawal of the threatened resignation by Coalition MP George Christensen (initially kept secret to highlight the “crisis”), who reportedly claimed that Joyce’s win gave the National’s a “reinvigorated leader”.

At the same time, however, other developments suggest Turnbull’s Prime Ministership remains hanging by a thread. These include

The NSW leader of the National Party, John Barilaro, signalled the National’s unhappiness with Turnbull by calling on him to resign.
Academic Fitzgerald portrays “an allegedly conservative government that’s increased taxes, increased spending and increased regulation”, “that’s slugged self-funded retirees and bank shareholders with big new taxes, blown billions of borrowed dollars on the left’s Gonski changes, put cutting emissions ahead of cutting power prices, and just agreed to a royal commission into the banks that it had resisted for two years” (see Fitzgerald on Turnbull).
Business analyst Terry McCrann pointed out on 5 December that, inter alia, the swing to Joyce reflected the absence of Windsor (who got 29% of the vote in the 2016 general election but did not stand in the by-election).
Columnist Janet Albrechsten wrote an excellent article in yesterday’s OZ surveying Turnbull’s “achievements” (see Albrechtsen on Turnbull). Among a range of such achievements, she included “his capacity for delusion as just one of the reasons he earns a D this year for his 2017 performance as Prime Minister …this delusion reaches comic proportions given the growing number of voters who have decamped from the Liberal Party to One Nation, and increasing numbers looking closely at Cory Bernardi’s breakaway conservative party… despite a little poll boost this week, the Turnbull government has trailed Labor all year, for 24 polls now. Its best result was a lag of four points. This week it was a six-point lag behind Labor… the gap reflects Turnbull’s D and his desertion of the Liberal brand”.
Albrechsten also drew attention to Turnbull’s “dabbling” in reforming free speech and his ability to claim that he could not achieve it because he could not persuade other left-leaning Liberals, which she described as “LINOs — Liberals in Name Only”.
Today The Australian has published an article by John Stone (see Stone on Turnbull) which covers some of the same ground as his recent Spectator article but now describes Turnbull, politically speaking, as “a dead man walking” and predicts a Labor win in the Bennelong by-election partly because “Turnbull reneged on his clear promise” that religious freedoms would be protected in the same-sex marriage legislation. Stone concludes

“Some things have now long been obvious. First, Turnbull must go. Second, the sooner the better. Third, his replacement must be from the party’s right (ruling out Julie Bishop). Fourth, as Chris Kenny wrote last month in The Weekend Australian, while there are costs to any leadership change, “one leadership alternative will always remain for the Coalition”: a reversion to “reinstall someone elected in a landslide in 2013 and robbed of a chance at re-election”. Kenny is right. If the Liberals want to hold Bennelong, they should not only replace Turnbull immediately, but also choose a leader whose own commitment to traditional marriage is unquestionable. Only one person fits: Tony Abbott”.
In contrast, Columnist Niki Savva, a long standing supporter of Turnbull, argues that “if the Liberals replace their leader this side of the federal election, which could be sooner rather than later thanks to the rolling, roiling citizenship saga, they will be signing the government’s death warrant”. Yet she offers no justification for this conclusion when the opposite conclusion seems more realistic, particularly as she also acknowledges that opponents of Turnbull will continue criticism “partly because they can, partly because this government often gives the impression it has a death wish, and partly because of the number of political missteps, there is no good reason or incentive for them to stop”. She also acknowledges that, while “Turnbull has sharpened up…he has to stay sharper without let-up. He has to get out more; then, when he is out and about, he has to have fixed in his head what message it is he wants to transmit, and — while we are at it — stop checking his watch, keep his hands out of his pockets or stop folding them behind his back so they are always ready to shake or hug”.

To me this sounds like a message of doom on which Turnbull would be wise to acknowledge and change course – but which Liberal MPs should recognise and move in their own interests to remedy ASAP as Stone has recommended.

Turnbull A Gonna & High Cost of Energy Policies.

Des Moore — Fri, 01 Dec 2017 07:02:38 +0000

Turnbull is Finished, But…

Today’s media is replite with analyses which, although not actually saying that Turnbull is finished as PM, leave the reader with little else but to conclude that this is the case. Below is a summary of conclusions by several commentators

John Stone, who has long argued that Turnbull must go (as have I), refers in Spectator Australia for 2 December to the progressive deterioration in polling for the Coalition and Turnbull over the past 16 months. He argues that, for more than 9 months, “voters are no longer listening to Turnbull” and “it’s time for a circuit breaker –in the form of a Liberal leadership change – to be brought on” (see DIS-CON NOTES –No More Shilly-Shallying). Stone says that, while the primary focus in his DIS-CON notes of October was to ensure that Labor is defeated in 2019 rather than to nominate a replacement for Turnbull, he now refers to two developments which support Abbott as the replacement.

First, that while in Weekend Australian of 11-12 November Chris Kenny had acknowledged that some say that “ leadership switching is fatal”, he had also argued that it is more readily supported where it involves re-installing “someone elected in a landslide in 2013 and robbed of a chance at re-election”. Second, Stone argues that the survey process on same-sex marriage adopted by “the Turnbull/Brandis/Pyne coterie” had been “devious” and that there has been a subsequent reneging “on the legislative protections promised by Turnbull against the further attacks on our freedoms that the changed definition of marriage will now inevitably produce”. He added that the three Liberal assistant ministers who had strongly criticised this publicly would not “survive” under Turnbull but would under Abbott.

Terry McCrann says that “PM and Treasurer were playing desperate ‘two minutes-to-midnight’ politics in calling the RC that they, sensibly, didn’t want and which we, the country and bank customers, most certainly do not need. But we have an awful — and that word is used deliberately — lot of politics coming up over the next month. By Christmas, we could even be on the way to an early new year election and the near certainty of a Labor government and a PM Shorten with a much tougher anti-bank agenda. If the government loses the Bennelong by-election next month to Labor’s ‘celebrity’ candidate, former NSW premier Kristina Keneally, and the unknown Coalition rebel carries out his threat to quit, the Prime Minister’s position would become completely untenable”.
David Crowe almost has two bob each way but notes that “the cabinet decision to launch a royal commission into banks captures the government’s shocking dilemma in a single moment. It admits defeat against more than a year of sharp politics from the Opposition Leader. It concedes the power of a handful of Nationals to beat the leadership (not just Turnbull) into submission. It responds to the Coalition’s failure to hold a majority in parliament, which is in turn the result of a weak performance at last year’s election”.
Dennis Shanahan says that “while the Turnbull government offers “financial certainty” as a justification for the (RC) backflip, the basic reason is it has lost its parliamentary majority, lost the faith of Nationals MPs and senators, lost the ability to persuade angry backbenchers not to cross the floor, lost prime ministerial authority and lost the politics to Bill Shorten. The minority Turnbull government has suffered a humiliating parliamentary loss while the House of Representatives was suspended to avoid such a loss”.
Andrew Bolt had yesterday advised his readers to “look at the disastrous polls. Look now at government MPs trembling at the shock of the Queensland state election, where One Nation won more than 20 per cent in the seats it contested, stripping the Coalition of votes and victory. It’s over and some Coalition MPs are openly challenging Turnbull’s authority as leader”. But Bolt also advised Abbott not to try to replace Turnbull because “it’s not worth it, Tony. You’d lose. You wouldn’t save the Liberals — no one can — and you’d be blamed for failing. I saw how being sacked as prime minister nearly killed you and, as a mate, I’d hate to see them finish the job and dance on your ashes”.

All this suggests that at next week’s Party Room meeting Turnbull will be confronted with a motion of no confidence. But who will move it? There is as yet no indication that anyone wishes to take over the job of restoring the Liberal Party’s polling – and Turnbull has created such a disastrous situation (one which, underneath, he may even have wanted) that this would be understandable. But given that Abbott decided to stay in Parliament after he lost to Turnbull, he almost has a responsibility to try.

Of course, it cannot be assumed that such an opportunity will arise. Turnbull might move to prevent it by calling an election before next week and the GG would find it difficult to reject such a move.

Energy Policy

I have argued in previous Commentaries that federal (and state) decisions are being made on electricity policy without adequate analysis of the economic costs and are being justified wrongly. That has particularly applied to the National Energy Guarantee (NEG) scheme, which Turnbull rushed out on the argument that it reflected the view of “experts” as a way of fulfilling Australia’s (voluntary) commitment on reducing carbon emissions. The body specially created to recommend the regulatory arrangements, the Energy Security Board (ESB), is chaired by Kerry Schott and indications were given that details would be soon published by the ESB. But judging by her recent AFR letter this now appears likely to take some time (see ESB’s Schott Says Neg Needs more Work). Note in particular her comment that

“Finally, the work of the board in the near future must focus on two things. First, exactly how the National Energy Guarantee will work and how compliance in the market will be monitored and rewarded. This is not about modelling any number of different scenarios but rather about the market design of the Guarantee”.

This appears to confirm that Turnbull’s announcement of NEG was not based on any detailed and careful analysis.

Today, we also have a report (not yet studied by me) that the cost of the increasing renewable usage in the states is a major cause of the increase in electricity prices. This seems to differ from what has been said by both Federal and State Ministers and by claims that subsidies to new renewable projects can be stopped because they are not needed. (Such claims seem, however, to be rejected by investors in such projects).

If the Coalition elects a new leader, a top priority should be to change existing federal energy policies and fully explain the false justifications. That will be difficult given what has already been said. If however an election ensues, we can expect the new Labor government to go further down the same track as Turnbull and his Chief Scientist: indeed quite a bit further.

Turnbull Which way Which way

Des Moore — Tue, 21 Nov 2017 21:28:12 +0000

Turnbull’s Psychology

Turnbull’s decision to postpone by a week the resumption of Parliament, and his “guidance” to MPs that it should then focus for a couple of weeks on debating the same sex marriage legislation, has not been favourably received. It is widely seen as being an attempt to be “dodge the music” and extend the time at which Parliament would not be considering policy issues. His subsequent speech to the Business Council, where the main message was that his government wants to” ease the burden on middle-income Australians and at the same time return the budget to surplus”, hasn’t been well received either. Turnbull’s explanation (sic) that he is only “actively working” on preventing the otherwise higher tax burden through bracket creep is unlikely to persuade voters that he should stay as leader.

Of course, Turnbull is now desperate to attract electoral support. One attempt to do so is his decision send out a message to all and sundry (including me) explaining his Business Council speech. But he first did photo shots at the fruit and veg market at 4.44 am!

Has he reached the same stage as Robert Mugabe? At 93 he found himself in a similar position to that in which Alice found herself when she went down the rabbit burrow and didn’t know where to turn. Hence we witnessed a series of RM trying to decide which way which way. Now, it seems, he actually has resigned, although without a replacement being named. Presumably even his apparently numerous supporters felt the time had come.

Yesterday’s Cut & Paste in The Australian suggested that Mugabe’s position was similar to that of the singer in Dreamgirls, a Broadway musical hit of December 1981:

And I am telling you I’m not going / Even though the rough times are showing

/There’s just no way, there’s no way

I’m staying, I’m staying / And you, and you, and you / You’re gonna love me

Turnbull is undoubtedly singing the same song but it has become more difficult for him to find a chorus.

Bolt on a Rat in the Ranks

Yesterday Andrew Bolt published an article claiming that a Coalition MP had told him he would resign next month unless Turnbull is replaced as Prime Minister by a leader who can appeal to conservative voters (see Coalition MP Threatens Resignation). “This government has left the party and the values of the party,” said the lower house MP, who does not want to be identified yet. “It is miles away from what our rank and file say. “People tell me Malcolm Turnbull can’t make decisions, he dithers … “The final thing they say is that he’s a million miles from our values.”

This has naturally created considerable interest and Bolt has subsequently acknowledged on Sky News that he is taking a risk in publishing in advance the in confidence views of a Coalition MP who might not carry out his threat. Bolt has said, however, that he is prepared to take the risk that the MP would not change his mind because he has had a long standing relationship with him and felt he could trust him. He emphasised that the MP was not prepared to accept Bishop as the replacement because he judged she would be worse.

If this resignation eventuates next week, it is likely that the Turnbull government would then be in a minority in the lower House. In that event a loss to a motion of no confidence calling for the dissolution of Parliament and an election, which would likely be moved by the Opposition, would force an election.

Other Defensive Measures by Turnbull

As pointed out in today’s The Australian, “the sudden switch to a tax discussion smacks of a political tactic rather than an economic strategy” (see OZ Editorial on Tax Cuts). But even if the mid-year budget update (due approx mid-December) turns out better than suggested by last May’s full year estimates, any tax cuts would probably do no more than “cut” the bracket creep that would otherwise occur in 2018-19 and still leave a deficit for that year. In any event voters are not going to upgrade their view of Turnbull unless they are given figures which are seen as realistic and responsible by commentators.

A similar reaction probably applies to Frydenberg’s article claiming the benefits from the National Energy Guarantee scheme announced only a month ago with an undertaking that detailed modelling would be presented to the COAG meeting on 24 November. On this occasion Frydenberg says the estimates of lower prices under NEG are based on modelling by Frontier Economics, which formerly supplied Labor with modelling of the energy intensity scheme (which Frydenberg has rejected). It appears that Frontier reported to the Energy Security Board (ESB), which was established just prior to the NEG scheme and was supposed to be composed of energy and economic “experts”. It was frequently quoted by Turnbull as the key advisory body in deciding his government’s adoption of NEG. Interestingly, the AFR reports that the chair of ESB told an energy efficiency conference that she did not expect any agreement at COAG before April next year.

Frydenberg claims in his article that the predicted savings by Frontier are larger than those quoted earlier by the ESB. According to The Australian’s David Crowe, “the modelling by Frontier Economics finds that retail prices would be $120 a year lower on average for households from 2020 to 2030 and that wholesale prices would be 23 per cent lower, saving millions of dollars for factories and other big energy users. The analysis, done for the Energy Security Board of national regulators, shows that another $280 a year will be cut from household electricity bills over the same period from existing policies, helped in part by lower costs for renewable energy” (see Frontier Economics Models Benefits from NEG). However, Frydenberg uses little more than generalities in (apparently) endorsing their extent (see Frydenberg on Why Energy Prices will Fall). Energy market modelling, for example, is “based on a series of assumptions related to fuel prices, technology costs and demand forecasts” and “it shows that the share of renewables is likely to be about 32-36 per cent”. But the extent of assumptions is not likely to convince the electorate (or some of the states) that Turnbull should continue to lead.

Climate Change & Same Sex Agreements

Des Moore — Sun, 19 Nov 2017 07:22:55 +0000

Bonn Climate Change Conference

Available here is an article from the New York Times dated 18 November reporting on the Climate Change Conference held in Bonn over the past fortnight. Such conferences are scheduled to be held every year to assess progress in meeting the 2015 Paris Agreement. The article says that next year “world leaders will meet for a formal dialogue”.

Perhaps the most significant “outcome” from the conference is the acknowledgement that “the world’s nations are still failing to prevent drastic global warming in the decades ahead. ‘We need more action, more ambition, and we need it now,’ said Patricia Espinosa, the United Nations climate chief”. The two Open Graphics published in the NYT suggests that the current trajectories of carbon emissions by the EU and the US would need to be drastically lowered in order to have temperatures below 2C degrees by 2030. Graphics for China and India would show a much greater reduction required (of course such graphics are meaningless as there is no co-relationship between changes in emissions and temperatures).

It appears that no Australian minister attended the conference, although today’s Age reports that Frydenberg said that Australia would not be joining a new group of 20 countries established at the conference and entitled Powering Past Coal and promising not to build more coal power plants. The absence of an Australian minister may be due to the time being taken up on same sex marriage policy and on developing explanations on energy policy, for which a COAG meeting is due next week.

Same Sex Marriages

My Commentaries have so far steered clear of the discussion on same sex marriage mainly because it seemed that whichever way people voted did not mean a substantial change in the way people live or make decisions about their relationships. Those wanting normal unions between a man and a woman would go on having them and those not wanting them would go on living together as before but with unions of the same sex now being able to describe themselves as “married”. However, it appears that some in the same sex group regard the change as important and that some from both groups are concerned about possible adverse effects on freedom of speech in particular.

But I note first that both my wife and I voted “No” along with 38% of the high proportion of citizens who voted and we did so partly on the judgement that there were unlikely to be serious adverse or beneficial effects from retaining the status quo. This vote was not made because of antagonism to homosexuals or lesbians (or other combinations): we have friends and relations with those characteristics. Rather, the No vote was based on the view that a union between a man and a woman is the most natural and wide mode of human behaviour and, as such, the word ‘marriage’ should apply only to such agreements. There was no condemnation of agreements to co-habit with the same sex but they were seen as not appropriately described as a “marriage”. Rather, a co-habitation was seen as best described by using terms such as “partnerships” or “de factos” and that the use of such terms ought not be regarded as offensive, let alone discriminatory.

Of course, now that same sex agreements can become marriages legally, the word “married” will be usable in formal exchanges. But will those of the same sex who are now living together automatically become married or will they have to conclude a more formal agreement as previous normal marriages did? Presumably the Marriage Act will require some kind of formal agreement for same sexers. Some of the same sexers will likely continue to live together and not bother to conclude any agreement as such.

Some commentators have taken the view that the 62% who voted to treat same sex agreements as marriages now establishes that there has been a desirable correction to “out of date” attitudes. This seems to be the attitude taken in an article by The Australian journalist, David Crowe (see Crowe on SSex), who even claims what he describes as the “people’s vote” as “a significant win for Turnbull. He promised to settle the marriage question by Christmas and now looks like doing so. If only it had been possible five years earlier”.

But as the proportion who voted “No” is large, this doesn’t seem to justify an interpretation that the Nos are out of date (there are, incidentally, many issues debated in the community on which the minority is likely to describe their opponents as out of date: government policies directed at reducing carbon emissions are one such issue). Further, many of those who opposed the idea of having a plebiscite were forced to acknowledge that it worked satisfactorily from their viewpoint (see Henderson on SSex Marriage). As Henderson rightly says “It’s worth remembering the extent to which some supporters of same-sex marriage opposed Abbott’s proposed plebiscite and Turnbull’s postal survey until this week” (one might add that Turnbull initially opposed obtaining a view from Australian citizens but did a turn).

There was probably a range of reasons amongst those in the 62% who decided to treat same sex agreements as marriages. Many in the 62% probably judged that all unions should be treated “equally” in marriage legislation and that no harm would ensue: but that is not necessarily an “up to date” view. Governments legislate in ways which treat people unequally in circumstances where the view is taken that it is in the interests of society to do so. Unequal treatment applies to groups such as those mentally handicapped or judged as a threat to society. Certain types of unions are also not accepted as marriages, such as when either party is already married (bigamy, polygamy) or when the parties are in a prohibited relationship (direct descendants or siblings) or when there is deemed to be mental incapacity or persons below the permitted marriageable age.

There will be some interest in what amendments should now made to the Marriage Act. Before 2004, there was no definition of marriage under Australian legislation and instead the common law definition was used ie the views of judges as developed over time in England defined what a marriage would be. In 2004 an Australian definition was legislated, presumably drawing on this and saying “marriage means the union of a man and a woman to the exclusion of all others, voluntarily entered into for life”. This will now have to be amended to take account of same sex agreements, presumably by substituting “ a person” for “a man and a woman” but retaining the “voluntarily entered into for life”. The 2004 legislation also inserted a new section saying that certain unions are not marriages, including that “a union solemnised in a foreign country between:(a) a man and another man; or(b) a woman and another woman;must not be recognised as a marriage in Australia”. This will presumably be amended too, although there may be a question as to whether all such foreign marriages should be allowed (any foreign marriages not consistent with other sections of the Marriage Act would not be accepted in any event).

In conclusion, while a same sex union can now become a “marriage”, this is unlikely to make a substantial change to the way people live or make decisions about their relationships. True, some same sexers will be pleased to be able to conclude marriage agreements and some whose unions are not same sex will be critical of the new arrangements. But subject to protecting freedom to be critical and freedom to continue existing marriage agreements, life should continue basically unchanged.

Citizenship & Leadership Issues

Des Moore — Thu, 09 Nov 2017 10:54:19 +0000

Discussion and media coverage about the political situation is focussed mainly on the citizenship issue and its possible implications. It is an important and difficult issue on which to agree on what should be done (or attempted) to ensure that future elections (including the half Senate ones) have candidates who can pass a “no foreigners” test as prescribed by the High Court. The leaders of the two major parties seem to accept that it would be desirable on practical grounds to reach an agreement asap regarding the “audit” for future elections.

But as there may be unresolved legal issues that may be more difficult than it seems at first sight. Further, unless there were to be a general election first, it would not forego the additional by-elections which will be needed and are unlikely to be held before sometime well into 2018 (see in this rather confusing article Crowe on Results of Possible By-Elections). And Turnbull will do his utmost to drag out the timing of by-elections for as long as he can whereas Shorten would presumably opt for the earliest possible by elections.

The possible scheduling of by-elections out to April 2019 offers the potential to “save” Turnbull from a challenge as leader of the Coalition before then. Many Coalition MPs could argue that a change of leadership would disrupt the parties and create uncertainty as to the policies that would be adopted and followed under the new leader.

On the other hand such a change may improve the chances of Coalition candidates in by-elections and would have the potential to do so in a later general election.

Andrew Bolt argues that Turnbull has lost his media supporters and, while replacing Turnbull with Abbott or Dutton is unlikely to now save defeat in the election, it would stop the continued installing of Turnbull-like policies and would stop the use of a “Not as bad as Labor” slogan. Such an approach fails “to get party volunteers on to the barricades. No, to lose in a grand cause is often better than to win in a dud one, because what counts most: to fight for power or fight for ideas?”(see Bolt Says Only Saava & Kelly Support MT).

Graham Richardson takes an even stronger view in suggesting that existing Coalition MPs are losing any respect in the electorate and that, as a politician, Turnbull “is a dud” (see Richo Says MT Must Go).